Preparing the presentation was very enjoyable. I found researching Armstrong to be very interesting. Memorising the speech was definitely not an easy challenge, in return I feel accomplished to have managed it. I was nervous and therefore wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. After I presented my speech I felt relieved and satisfied. Although something that I hope to improve on, is connecting with the audience. I believe that I applied some of the ideas of credibility studied in class. For example; the 4 different types of credibility, User expertise/understanding, Evaluation error and the qualities of a credible person. I thought that Victoria added value to her speech by incorporating a quote from the CEO of the SF bike coalition. Amanda was skillful in mentioning another persons’ talk. Finally I though that Koko by writing the name of his subject on the board further focused the audience on his topic.
S1 presentation
Second video practice
First video practice
S1 Presentation: How did Lance Armstrong use his image in order to establish credibility?
Hello everyone, today I am going to evaluate how Lance Armstrong used his image in order to establish credibility with the public. My main focus will be that credibility is a perceived quality and therefore the level to which Armstrong was seen as credible could depend on many different factors.
Lance Armstrong is a former American professional cyclist. He had won the tour de France 7 years consecutively from 1999 to 2005 before being stripped of those titles in 2012 due to doping.
Firstly I would like to begin by evaluating what the general perception of Armstrong was, and how that affected his credibility. Different events of Armstrong’s life might have affected how he was viewed, for example his Testicular Cancer in 1996 might have helped him build a stronger Presumed Credibility in which the general assumption of a cancer survivor is that they are strong, resilient and posses good will. Its often said that fame maximizes who you are; Lance was very charitable and involved in helping the less fortunate, this increased his presumed credibility of being altruistic and further distracted people from the truth of his doping.
Armstrong was the subject of many books, movies and news articles all of which acclaimed him as being a man to follow and admire. Everything that was reported by these credible third party institutions made up his reputed credibility. To maintain that credibility Armstrong was very clever and able in remaining clean on the ‘surface’. He would passionately and strongly speak against any accusations in a way that to anyone watching him it would seem like he was telling the truth, but of course once he admitted to the allegation people’s experienced credibility shifted and lost trust in him. In his confession to Oprha Lance said, “I will spend the rest of my life trying to earn back trust”
Although some people were more skeptical than others even before his confession. This depended on the people’s expertise or understanding of Lance and his doping. For example lets look at a common fan of the sport, because of the reasons I explained earlier and his limited knowledge on the subject, he might believe that Lance was innocent. But someone with more expertise in the subject such as David Walsh, who began working on a story about doping in the bike world when lance was racing, might have had more reasons to doubt him.
Because of the lack of proof and Armstrong’s ability to create a credible image most people committed an evaluation error. Therefore not believing Walsh’s disbelieves, even though he was knowledgeable on the subject, because it was easier to accept what seemed more probable.
In conclusion, we should be careful in who we place out trust because even though they might appear to be well-intentioned, truthful, skilled or smart they might actually just be deceiving us in order to portray those qualities for their own personal gain.
Thank you, any questions?